Observe that without Capitalism, the success of Michael Moore wouldn't be possible. Rather than making 'mockumentaries' that appeal to inconsistent faux-intellectuals like himself, he would be a slovenly, whining complainer, bitching about 'the unfairness of it all' around a campfire, while partaking of food and drink provided by others. 

 

People like Michael Moore know that they can easily find an audience when they complain bitterly about the harsh grittiness of Capitalism. The problem is that the alternatives that they suggest (and the 'successful' examples that they cite) are just terrible. In "Sicko", you have Moore extolling the virtues of Cuban-style health care. Moore - and people who share his world-view - would be hard pressed to explain why Cuban doctors are competing for the privilege of leaving Cuba, as reported in the NY Times:

 

And then, they use perverse examples of Govt meddling to blame Capitalism. While there may be a lot to complain about life in America, it is often Govt interference that overrides the healthy skepticism that is inherent in Capitalism. For example, would pension fund managers in, say, Finland, buy flaky mortgage-backed-securities from American institutions if those securities lacked the imprimatur of the US Govt?

In Michael Moore's view, Capitalism suffers from the following fatal flaws:

* it creates a society that is competitive - some would say that it is brutally competitive
* it rewards risk-taking, but punishes mistakes
* it does not provide a safety net for the less competent

The above flaws, he says, can be removed by means of a layer of control (usually via the Govt), acting as a benevolent force for good. Although well-intentioned, those controls inexorably chip away at the source of Capitalism's power - the freedom of individuals to improve themselves, thereby reaching a higher level of success.

The result is often much harsher, and certainly a lot grittier! Opponents of Capitalism would say that the lack of success of the alternatives just mean that they (e.g. Soviet Russia, Cuba, North Korea) just didn't find the right mix of benevolent Government and freedom. They would like to tweak the recipe, in the hope of finding a magic formula that retains the affluence of Capitalism, but gives them the power to re-distribute the results. In the vernacular of young people today, "Good luck with that".

The reality is that the very concept of a well meaning 'nanny' Government kills the incentives and the accountability implied in Capitalism. The safety net of a mixed economy is not protectively under citizens - it is above them, keeping them down, eliminating that which makes people work harder, take risks and prosper.

By ensuring the best use of resources, Capitalism reduces the overall level of poverty. The fact that this is achieved without it being a stated goal renders moot the effusive smarminess and sloganeering of Leftist propaganda.

America was founded on the basis of freedom. A novel idea, this meant that people were free but Govt was bound. Americans were free to do anything except those few actions that were legally proscribed (murder, robbery etc). On the other hand, Govt was bound to do only that which it was permitted, by the voluntary consent of citizens.

In economics, the above priniciples led to Capitalism. After all, unlike other economic systems, Capitalism isn't a rigid set of rules - it is what naturally evolves in the marketplace when there is an absence of Govt control.

With its philosophical underpinnings of freedom, and its economic incentives aligned with human predilictions, the American economy sputtered to life. Within two centuries of its birth - a relatively small time span in terms of societal evolution - it became a roaring engine that sustained the growth of a magnificent nation. Before long, it became the dominant economy in the world. This was because most of the other countries were mired in the muck of monarchy, feudalism or savage cannibalism (aka socialism) in which the economic incentives ran counter to individual desires. The stated intentions of the Governing class in those countries had very little to do with their actual outcomes - they were doomed because of their misaligned incentives.

Somewhere along the line, the "meddlers" awoke in America. Mostly these were 4th or 5th generation Americans who inherited (rather than earned) their affluence. A generation or two removed from the mostly virtuous actions that had led to their affluence, they felt culturally deprived, strangely envious of other countries that had cultural legacy, but weak economies. They donned the mantle of "intellectuals" and embarked on the process of "improving" the barbaric conditions that Capitalism had imposed on America. They found many people in other countries who were envious of America's affluence, but who sneered at its perceived gaucherie and gaudiness. This didn't keep them from shamelessly riding the coat tails of American success (which they disparaged) while seeking economic and/or military support from Americans when their so-called elite & cultured societies faltered.

With altruism as a stage-prop American 'intellectuals' were able to convince many people that Capitalism was savage and unkind. In a way they were correct - Capitalism is all of those things, but it works because it is consistent with proclivities of free human beings.

The intellectuals used religion-inspired altruism to denigrate the very concept that had led to prosperity in America. This allowed the less successful, guided by morally fraudulent intellectuals, to seek the transfer of wealth from their betters. By codifying their concepts into subjective law and taxation, they were able to legalize robbery - and call it justice.

This is the secret weapon of the Leftists - and it is a one-two punch - the concepts of altruism and unearned guilt are the two components. Its a case of Heads - they win, and Tails - you lose! 

Socialism's biggest victory (albeit a Pyrrhic one) has been the voluntary acceptance by the producers that they should live for the sake of their parasites.

In America, many hardworking people who are not of the looter / moocher persuasion routinely vote for entitlements, or for politicians who support ever-expanding programs such as Universal Health Care, Public Education and Welfare.

To be a successful 'producer' in a competitive economy, one has to be reasonably smart. So why do so many get smart people get conned?

In the Leftist credo: Altruism is worshipped as an unlimited virtue & an un-earned Guilt is reserved for those who succeed. Unless the producers in our society reject both those principles, they are easy prey for Leftist moochers like Michael Moore.